I
am writing in reference to your claim for benefits under the Energy Employees
Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act.

If
you are not already aware, employees who worked at the Mallinckrodt Chemical Company, Destrehan
Street Plant (Mallinckrodt) in St. Louis, Missouri, for at least 250 work days during the
timeframe of January 1, 1958 through December 31, 1958 were added to the Special Exposure Cohort effective February 15, 2009. Our records indicate you have
verified employment at Mallinckrodt during this timeframe. Therefore, we are
in the process of re-examining your case to determine if you qualify for
benefits under the rules of this new SEC class.

In
order to begin this process, I must first vacate our previous decision(s) and
reopen your case. The attached Director’s Order explains the reason why the
prior decision(s) is being vacated and your case reopened. Please read this
Order very carefully. If any of the basic information has changed since your
final decision was issued (such as medical condition(s) or employment dates),
please contact this office immediately and ask for your assigned claims
examiner. Your information will be incorporated into your case file and
considered in our decision. Once we have completed our review of your file, a
new recommended decision will be issued concerning your eligibility under this
SEC designation.

If
you have any questions about the Director’s Order, please feel free to call my
office, toll free, at: (xxx) xx-xxxx.

Sincerely,

{Name
of District Director}

District
Director

EMPLOYEE: [Employee
Name]

CLAIMANT: [Claimant(s)
Name]

FILE NUMBER: [File
Number]

DOCKET NUMBER: [Insert
Docket Number]

DIRECTOR’S ORDER

On {date} you were
issued a final decision denying your claim for benefits under (Part B/E)
of the Energy Employees Occupational Illness
Compensation Program Act (EEOICPA or the Act). A final decision may be
reopened at any time on motion of the Director of the Division of Energy
Employees Occupational Illness Compensation (DEEOIC). Because of new
developments described in this Director’s Order, the {date} Final Decision under (Part B/E)of the Act is hereby vacated and your case reopened under
this provision.

BACKGROUND

{Provide a
concise and accurate synopsis of the claim’s history. Some sample paragraphs
are provided here, though these should be altered to tailor-fit the specifics
of the case.}

The
evidence of record shows that {claimant name} filed Form EE-2
(Claim for Survivor Benefits under the EEOICPA) under Part B (and/or E, as
appropriate) on {date}. It was asserted that {employee
and relationship} developed {cancer type} as a
result of employment at the Mallinckrodt
Chemical Company, Destrehan Street Plant (Mallinckrodt) in St. Louis, Missouri.Medical documentation established the claimed condition.

{Because
there have been two previous classes for MCW, there are more possible
variations to the paths leading up to this Director’s Order. CE’s are to tailor
the language to the specifics of the case. Below is one possible path}

Your claim was
reviewed on {date} for potential inclusion in previous Mallinckrodt classes
which covered employment during 1942 -1957. However, at that time you were not
found to have 250 days in the class.

Because you did not
meet the earlier criteria for inclusion in the SEC, your case was referred to
the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), a division
of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in order to receive a dose
reconstruction. A dose reconstruction allows the Department of Labor to run a
program that provides a number called the probability of causation (PoC).
Under Part B of the Act, a cancer is “at least as
likely as not” related to employment at a covered facility if the PoC is 50% or
greater. In your case, the PoC was calculated to be {XX.XX%}

As a
result, on {date}, the district office issued a recommended decision denying
the claim under Part B of the Act, because the PoC was less than 50%.

The recommended decision was
forwarded to the Final Adjudication Branch (FAB) in accordance with our
procedures for an independent assessment and issuance of a final decision. On {date},
the FAB issued a Final Decision, affirming the recommended decision to deny the
claim. {If there is also a claim for Part E- Explain the decision
in the next paragraph.}

DISCUSSION

Under the Act, there is a provision that allows for
payment of some cases regardless of a previous PoC. This provision becomes
available when employees are included in a class of the Special Exposure Cohort
(SEC). To be included as a member in a class of the SEC, the employee must be
diagnosed with a specified cancer and meet all the employment requirements of the
SEC class.

While performing dose reconstructions, there are
instances in which NIOSH determines that they are unable to complete the
process. In these instances, NIOSH initiates a petition so that those
employees for whom they are unable to complete a dose reconstruction and
similarly situated employees be added as a class in the SEC. Such a petition
recently went through the approval process and effective February 15, 2009, a new class of employees who
worked at Mallinckrodt Chemical
Company, Destrehan Street Plant in 1958 became part of the SEC. The
designation stated:

All
employees of the DOE, it predecessor agencies, and their contractors or
subcontractors who worked in the Uranium Division at the Mallinckrodt Chemical
Co., Destrehan Street Plant in St. Louis, Missouri from January 1, 1958 to
December 31, 1958, for a number of work days aggregating at least 250 work
days, occurring either solely under this employment or in combination with work
days within the parameters established for one or more other classes of
employees included in the SEC.

CONCLUSION
(Note: This
paragraph is particularly important)

Based
on the designation of this new class into the SEC, the district office has
reviewed the file and finds there is sufficient evidence to warrant reopening
of this claim. The evidence of record shows that the employee worked {describe
evidence that shows the employee worked for at least 250 work days at
Mallinckrodt during the designated years for the new class in the SEC}.
This demonstrates that the employee performed work at Mallinckrodt at least 250
work days within the designated time period for the SEC class. Moreover, the
evidence establishes the employee was diagnosed with, {type of cancer}
a SEC-specified cancer.

Therefore,
the above findings indicate potential eligibility as a member of the SEC. Accordingly, the Final Decision pursuant to
Part B and/or Part E is hereby vacated and the case is reopened so that a new
recommended decision can be issued.

If you disagree
with the recommended decision, you will have the opportunity to file an
objection and request an oral hearing or a review of the written record.

{city of
district office}

{Name of District Director}

District
Director

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify
that on a copy of the Director’s
Order was sent by regular mail to the following: